On Getting That "Better" Lens

[EdVerosky]

From my blog:



Many photographers are gear junkies. We love the toys and technology of our craft. There's nothing like researching about, shopping for, and finally getting to use a brand new camera, strobe, or other new piece of equipment. Like LENSES... Ah, lenses. But good equipment is relatively expensive. A standard pro-level lens can cost upwards of $2,000. The images you get from that lens, however, can blow your mind. Or not.

There's no guarantee that a new lens will make all that much difference in the final boudoir portrait or wedding print. Better lenses will generally provide you with sharper images, improved color and contrast, and the ability to shoot faster when less light is available. But, what most consumer-level lenses lack in these areas, photo editing software can make up for to a great extent. This isn't true under every shooting condition, of course. But, for general photography, you most certainly can avoid the high-end lenses and still achieve great results.

Why buy the expensive stuff?

It's very reasonable for me to expect my higher-end lenses to deliver super sharp images in challenging shooting conditions. I'm literally amazed every time I look at the detail I get from my pro-level lenses. The advantages to using this type of equipment:

• GLASS - Most of the time, the quality and size of the actual glass present in these lenses make for undeniably sharper and clearer images.
  
• BUILD QUALITY - Professional lenses are built like tanks compared to their consumer counterparts. Weatherproof tanks, by the way. They can handle the punishment a pro dishes out on a shoot. They're sealed to help keep dust out of the camera body. If you've got a nice weatherproof $6,000 camera attached to that lens, you can shoot in the rain without worry. And, professionals need rugged equipment that won't break in the middle of a wedding ceremony or other important event.
  
• TECHNOLOGY - Some serious mechanics go into some of these lenses. I have the 70-200 IS L that supposedly has a couple of tiny gyroscopes built-in to help keep the image steady during camera shake. It works, too. Of course, it weighs a ton.
  
• SPEED - A big one for me. More expensive lenses usually come with wider apertures. This means you can shoot with less light together with camera settings that allow for higher quality images at faster speeds to prevent motion blur. For someone who shoots weddings and music, speed is very important. This becomes a little less of an issue if you use flash for everything. But I wouldn't want to use flash if I didn't have to.

Disadvantages? Cost.

So, you have the good stuff. Why use anything else?

It's nice to have equipment that you know you can count on either because of the technology built-in, or the plain old durability. But, I'm not a slave to my equipment. The best stuff is not alwaysthe best stuff to use. Over time, I've discovered less of a reliance on my most sophisticated and pricey lenses. I instinctively grab what I think will work best in a given situation. Yes, I use my best stuff if it's right for the job. Sometimes--actually, many times--it is the simplest, least expensive lens in my bag that's perfect for the job at hand.

Speaking of which, I find that I'm using my $70 50mm 1.8 quite a bit lately. This lens is a favorite among many pros for the following reasons:

• GREAT IMAGE QUALITY - At standard stops like f/5.6 or f/8, you can get super sharp images that rival the best lenses.
  
• GOOD FOR LOW LIGHT - You can shoot without a flash, in very low-light conditions.
  
• VERY SMALL & LIGHT - The lens weighs almost nothing.
  
• CHEAP - This means you can buy more than one. If one breaks or gets lost, who cares. Of course, cheap means it might let a little dust into your camera--but that happens anyway. It also can't handle rough treatment, so I'm gentle with mine.

It's not the size of your lens, it's what you can do with it.

Yes, I can get great images with my cheapest, and smallest equipment. Why does knowing this give me a warm, fuzzy feeling? Well, I really believe that being good at photography, means you can do it under virtually any situation, with any equipment or lack thereof. It was said about Helmut Newton, that he infuriated other photographers of his time (at Vogue) because of his ability to create great images with any old camera lying around, even in bad light.

You want better pictures? Just make better pictures.

There is a huge marketing machine in place in the photographic industry. The message is always the same: Buy the newest stuff, or more of the expensive stuff, to make your photography better. But, buying the latest and greatest can become a distraction for photographers in a rut. Investing in personal creativity and learning the hard, technical stuff you've been avoiding--that's going to make the biggest difference. After that, nothing beats practicing your craft.

Forget about that new lens you've had your eye on. First, figure out what YOU can do with a $70 50mm plastic mount lens!

Pictured: "The Tank." Canon's 70-200 2.8 L IS. I use mine for weddings and some outdoor portraiture.

[igcollection]

Very, Very good advice. I was almost certain i needed a new lens. But after thinking it over last night, it's time for me to develop a look. What i mean is i want to create an action with color settings that will give consistent color to my images.

Not just any color or what the eye sees, what i myself want to show my clients would be very specific. For example: the cross process look on ALL my images but modified to make it look nice and not hurt the eye. Then i will have a look. That's my take.

[humminboid]

Ed:
Absolutely true regarding build quality, and longevity, but too many "photographers" expect the"GEE WHIZ FACTOR" of a big, expen$ive lens of any flavor to automatically invest them with the power to make images like a master that has studied and practiced his craft, and has come as close to mastering it as anyone can hope to.

I will admit to lustful thoughts regarding the Nikon 300mm f/4 lens, which I never have been able to afford. Once I almost mugged a news photog at a game, just to get his.

My buddy bought a LARGE 3rd party zoom a year ago, and was very unhappy with his images. He couldn't sell it, due to the financial loss, and I told him to keep practicing. Finally, at the end of this past summer, he was getting photos he liked.

The truth is, most of us can get along just fine with the "consumer" (that seems to have become a perjorative term lately) lenses produced by every lens maker, while we are learning (always) and refining our craft. They are sharper than most of us can hold, anyway, and will produce amazing large images...IF we do our part.

As for the big guns....dream on! Maybe one day...

[Teddington]

It's not just photography. The world, or at least the US, is full of ads whose sole purpose is to convince the typical hack that he can take on Tiger Woods if he just buys their Driver, wedge, putter, gimmick, etc.

Having said that, there is a difference in equipment and very good equipment will help you take better photographes if you have any talent at all but, just like golf, it won't make a bad photog a good one. At the end of the day, it's what's behind the camera or lens that has the most impact on what comes out of it.

[texxter]

It's true that excellent equipment does not necessarily result in excellent pictures. At the same time, excellent equipment is built better, will last longer, and will give an experience photographer the assurance that the work will not be suboptimal because of equipment deficiencies. I am of the opinion that at the beginning of one's journey as a photographer one should by one camera and one lens and shoot, shoot, shoot until such time when the photographers feels he or she can consistently produce good results with that equipment. Then, assuming the money is there, replace the entry level equipment with professional lenses that will last a lifetime. Even a digital body can last years, current ones are absolutely awesome.

[txphotog]

Very true- most expect the expensive and latest 10000000 megapixel camera or big lens to make them a pro. Many dont take the time to learn the craft and technical aspects of photography.

[LiverDog]

I love this. I know it to be true. I even proved it outright to myself during this years SXSW. My equipment is plenty good enough to produce publishable shots. Money Shots! But damned if I don't want another 10,000 bucks worth of glass in my bag. My concert photography is done almost exclusively with a 50mm 1.4. I break out the 70-300 for big concert show because the light is so much better.

I have decided to practice self denial in the lens department at least for the next year while I fill out the home studio. stands, clamps, hot lights from Home Depot, back ground paper, bigger soft boxes for the strobes, sand bags etc.

Thanks again Ed as always you shoot to kill boss.

Arnold

[texfoto]

You just talked me out of a used Nikon 300 AF-S II 2.8 for $3200. Do I really need it? No. Do I want it, yes. It's hard to pass up the deal but I'm not shooting anything for money yet so it's hard to justify for an amateur hobbyist.

[texxter]

Miuke, even if you're a professional photographer making a living with your photo gear... spending $3,200 on a piece of glass is a lot. Many pro's own what they use 80% of the time and they rent specialty equipment when needed. Some pro's, like sports photographers, may use the 300mm all the time, in which case they own it - but otherwise, it's not cost effective.

If you look at the film industry, the equipment used is extremely expensive, and entire movies are done with rented equipment. No other way!

[LiverDog]

Yeah I know. I want a CZ 85mm 1.4 and a G Series 70-200 2.8. But I published my shots that were taken with a 70-300mm 5.6. I just had to get over my fear of higher ISO settings.

Arnold

[texfoto]

Originally Posted by texxter

Miuke, even if you're a professional photographer making a living with your photo gear... spending $3,200 on a piece of glass is a lot. Many pro's own what they use 80% of the time and they rent specialty equipment when needed. Some pro's, like sports photographers, may use the 300mm all the time, in which case they own it - but otherwise, it's not cost effective.

If you look at the film industry, the equipment used is extremely expensive, and entire movies are done with rented equipment. No other way!

Renting is a good way to keep me from spending gobs of money. I am considering it instead for any large lens usage. But it is hard to cure lens lust!

[LiverDog]

Yeah renting is great until you find out what the deposit is at our local high end camera shop. You might as well buy it, because the deposit is going to be as much as the lens would be for them to replace.

Arnold

[texxter]

Lens rental can be a good deal for lenses you need only occassionally.

I've had good experiences with lensrentals.com, they don't require a deposit, and they have a great selection and reasonable prices. The Canon 300mm f/2.8 can be rented for a week for $214 insured. The lens, if bought new, is $4K. The best part is that if you're a commercial professional photographer, the cost of renting the lens is charged to the client, so it's just an en expense that you don't need to carry. You may even pad it a little to cover your time dealing with the rental company. If you own it, you've taken $4K our of your bottomline. If you're doing stock or retail portraiture you cannot charge for the rental, but you only pay when you use the lens to make money.

If you are a hobbyist, you probably have lens lust and you'll eventually buy it, as a rental does not have the appeal of a lens in your bag.

[williamkazak]

Good lenses suck you right in. They are amazing in just the way they look and feel. You know it is going to be up to you to make it work out. There are no more excuses. If you have read the reviews and you have done your research, then you must test it out for yourself. Are you pleased with the results? Are you getting the pics that you expected and more? Does the lens work well with your kit or, are you fooling yourself to just buy more lenses than you need in the hopes that the lens will make you more than you are? It is not called "camera work" for nothing.

[jeffclow]

Interesting reading. I wonder how many of us use just one lens 90% of the time?

I know I do, and its not considered a pro lens (18-200mmVR Nikkor), but it sure is versatile and I've sold a lot of photos taken with it.

But I do know the feeling of lens lust......!